Contract Reviews: Happ and Morton

A couple of similar pitchers signed similar deals with a couple of AL East teams

J.A. Happ to the Yankees for 2 years and $34 million (with a vesting option for a 3rd year).
Charlie Morton to the Rays for 2 years and $30 million (with a team option for a 3rd year with the salary dependent upon how many days Morton spends on the DL during the first 2 seasons).

Happ is a year older and has been healthier - making 119 starts in the last 4 seasons to Morton's 82.  In fact, Morton considered retiring after his contract expired, but decided $30 million was enough to work a couple more years.

*source

Morton has been better with and ERA and ERA estimators a quarter to half a run better than Happ's over the last 2 seasons.

*source

Happ's projected, by Steamer, for 187 innings while giving up 3.82 runs per 9.  That works out to about 3.2 WAR

Morton's projection, by Steamer, is for 165 innings of 3.50 runs per 9 performance.  That's also 3.2 WAR.



Both guys are expected to produce about 6 WAR over the first 2 seasons, the market value of that WAR is $60 million.  About twice what they are earning.

The 3rd year is for 2.2 WAR and an additional $24 million.

These look like pretty team friendly deals, for two somewhat under the radar productive pitchers.

Contract Review: Andrew McCutchen

Andrew McCutchen - the face of the Pittsburgh Pirates.  He put up nearly 30 WAR in the 4 seasons between 2012-2015.  That's very good.

He's also seems to be one of the more thoughtful professional athletes. 
https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/left-out

Now, he's a Philadelphia Philly for 3 years (and $50 million).  He's, at 32, certainly no the player that he once was with Pittsburgh.  Though, he's rebounded from a precipitous decline from 2015 to 2016 to remain a useful player.

The Phillies, are, as they say, upcoming.  They're loaded with young talent and on the precipice of contention. 

Does it make sense for them to sign McCutchen?

First, the projections.  Steamer projects McCutchen for 2.6 WAR in 2019.  Standard aging curves, then, have him producing like this over the life of the contract.
YEAR    WAR     VALUE
2019    2.6      $26
2020    2.1      $22
2021    1.6      $18
TOT     6.3      $66

All the above assumptions have McCutchen producing $16 million more than the Phillies are paying him, so, on that level, the deal makes sense. 

But, does it make sense to commit to a declining player when the teams' fortunes should be going up?

The Phillies' depth chart for 2019 had Nick Williams, Roman Quinn and Odubel Herrera as the primary outfielders.  They were projected for 3.2 WAR combined.  That's not great.  Fangraphs, had a 40 future value for Quinn, and a 45 for Williams.  Meaning that neither is expected to be an average (2 WAR ) player in the future.  So, there was certainly need for an OFer for 2019.  Quinn looks to be the lesser of the OFers, but is the most qualified to play CF.  Meaning McCutchen is more likely to replace Williams - somewhat mitigating the improvement.  Herrera has been the Phillies' CFer, but the metrics hated his defense last year (-10 UZR/150 compared to +9 and +4 in 2016 and 2017). 

The Phillies don't have much coming up from the farm either.  Adam Haseley, Mickey Moniak and Dylan Cozens are their top minor league outfielders but none are even 50 future value players, so none should be expected to be impact players.  Though Haseley and Cozens had strong seasons in the minors last year. 

So, I still don't like the idea of the Phillies giving what looks like a below average McCutchen starting OFer money when they should be in the prime of their contention window, the deal makes sense if they think they're in the running this year and next.  

Trade Review: Robinson Cano and Edwin Diaz to the Mets for stuff

Wow, it's been a while since I've written a blog.  Somehow lots of stuff, but not that much has been happening since November of 2016.

Anyway,


I was interested in the Mets/Mariners trade and decided to take a look at it.  Since I did, I might as well put some thoughts into words.

So, here's the deal
Mariners give up 2B Robinson Cano, RP Edwin Diaz and $20 million
Mets give up OF Jay Bruce, RP Anthony Swarzak, and prospects OF Jarred Kelenic, SP Justin Dunn and RP Gerson Bautista.

Here's the deal with the deal.

First, some assumptions and sources
As always, I'm highly influenced by FanGraphs.  So, I'll be using projections and methodology from them.

Starting with Robinson Cano
Robinson Cano might be a Hall of Famer in 15 to 20 years.  He's been an incredible and consistent player.  Last year was, arguably, his worst year since his rookie year in 2005.  This is largely because he missed half of the season due to a PED suspension.  When he was on the field, he was fantastic - hitting 36% better than league average and playing plus defense.  His season was split roughly in half by the suspension (169 PA's before and 179 after).  He hit a bit better after returning (140 wRC+ to 131 wRC+) - so much for PED's enhancing performance, eh?  He' also entering the second half of a massive contract (10 years $240 million).

Then there's Edwin Diaz.  He's gone from a good starting pitching prospect to one of the league's most dominant relievers.  His 73 innings were more productive (per WAR) than Cano's  80 games and 350 PA's.  He's also super inexpensive due to MLB's manipulation of player salaries.

Then, the Mets' guys
Jay Bruce.  It was not a goo idea to sign Bruce to a 3 year $39 million contract on the strength of his 2017 season.  In the three prior seasons he had been, basically, usless (just 0.2 WAR) before resurging (or dead cat bouncing) to 2.6 WAR in 2017.  Unsurprisingly, his 2018 was a lot more like the three prior seasons as he produced just .1 WAR.

Anthony Swarzak.  Swarzak turned his own out of character 2017 into millions of Mets dollars.  He was a non-descript (1.1 WAR) starter and reliever for 7 seasons before doubling his career productions in 2017.  The Mets thought he was for real, and gave him $16 million for 2018 and 2019.  He was non-descript (-.4 WAR) in 2018.

And the prospects (I know less about them than I do about the major league players, which already isn't that much).

Jarred Kelenick is the big get.  He's an athletic and toolsy 19 year old outfielder in rookie ball.  The Fangraphs' prospect guys gave him a 50 future value, meaning they expect him to be an average everyday player in the major leagues.  He's at least 3 years from the majors.

Number 2 was Justin Dunn.  He threw 89 pretty good innings in AA last year as a right-handed starter.  He could see major league time in 2019.  The Fangraphs guys gave him a 45 future value, meaning a back-end starter or reliever in the big leagues.

Then Gerson Bautista.  The right-handed reliever made his major league debut last year with 4.3 innings for the Mets.  He wasn't great in those 4 innings, but, it's just 4 innings.  The best pitchers in baseball can be not the best for 4 innings.  He's got a 40 future value from Fangraphs which is a low-leverage reliever or guy who shuffles between AAA and the majors.


So, an overview of some guys you probably know something about if you've somehow found this random-ass blog.

Now, what I think of it.

Before looking at anything, it seemed like this would make the Mets better in the short term.  Bruce and Swarzak didn't look like much - certainly worse than Cano and Diaz.  A lot more questionable in the long-term.  The Mets give up 2 pretty good prospects in Kelenick and Dunn plus a cromulent Bautista.  Plus added the large contract of an aging Cano.

The question then becomes, "Did the Mets get enough better in the short term to justify what they gave up to get better?".

That's where some analysis comes in.  Or, you can just argue back and forth.  I prefer the former.  Then you can argue, because, hey, no one knows the future.

So, using projections by Steamer and hosted on Fangraphs, some simple aging curves and prospect valuations, we can make a somewhat educated guess about what kind of value these players have.

Starting with Cano
He's projected for 3.0 WAR in 2019.  As an aging player he's expected to lose .5 WAR each season.  He also makes $20 million per year ($24 million per year minus the $4 million per year the Mariners are sending to the Mets.  We can make a chart, like this:
YEAR        WAR      MONEY
2019        3.0        $20
2020        2.5        $20
2021        2.0        $20
2022        1.5        $20
2023        1.0        $20
TOTAL      10.0       $100

So, he's expected to produce 10 WAR and cost $100 million for a tidy $10 million per WAR.  Which, is about what 1 WAR costs on the current free agent market.  This cost typically increases each year.  Based on these assumptions, Cano's contract doesn't look that bad.  He's really only significantly underwater the final year.

How about Diaz?  He's yet to go through arbitration which puts his cost well below his market value until 2023.  He should provide significant value above and beyond what he's being paid.  But, we don't know what he'll make.  Using Kenley Jansen's salaries as a template, I estimate something like this.
YEAR        WAR      MONEY
2019        2.0        $.5
2020        2.0        $5
2021        2.0        $10
2022        2.0        $12
TOTAL       8.0       $27.5
Nearly the same production as Cano at about 1/4 the cost.  Diaz is a valuable player.

In all, the Mets should expect 18 WAR at a cost of $127.5 million from this deal.  With one WAR costing about $10 million, and getting more expensive every year, this is very good for the Mets.

But, the Mets did give up players.  How does their production and cost look

Bruce
YEAR        WAR      MONEY
2019        0.5        $13
2020        0.0        $13
TOTAL       0.5        $26

Swarzak
YEAR        WAR      MONEY
2019        0.5        $8

TOTAL for both 1.0 WAR $34 million

Both these players are expected to be paid in excess of what they will produce. The deal gets better for the Mets!

But, there's still those three prospects that the Mets gave up.
Using the prospect valuations, I linked to above their values are as follows
Kelenick - $21 million
Dunn - $4 million
Bautista - $1 million
TOTAL - $26 million

Now, add everything up.
Swarzak and Bruce produce basically nothing for a cost of $34 million.  This is bad for Seattle
But, they get $26 million in prospects from the Mets.  This is good for Seattle.
And the $8 million dollar difference between $34 and $26 million, is, in baseball's ridiculous financial environment, about a wash - the cost of a player like Anthony Swarzak.

We've already seen that the Mets look to gain from the Cano and Diaz portion of the deal, compared to what they're being paid (thus compared to what the Mets could be expected to buy on the open market with that money if they went free agent shopping).

So, big win for the Mets and new General Manager Brodie Van Wagenen (who, coincidentally, or not, was Robinson Cano's agent who negotiated the $240 million deal Cano signed), right?

Not so fast.

We can break this deal down into the short (2 years) and long term (the next 3 years).
In the short term the Mets turned an expectation of 1.0 WAR and $34 million in expenditures into an expectation of 9.5 million and $45.5 million in expenditure.  The Mets made out like bandits in the short term.  For the cost of David Robertson (expected to produce about 2 WAR) the Mets upgraded by 8.5 WAR (one bad Mike Trout season).

How about the long-term.
The Mets turned $26 million in prospects into 8.5 WAR and $82 million.  Using some basic inflation (5% per year), the cost of those 8.5 WAR in 2021 to 2023 would be expected to be $96 million.  The Mets got if for $82 plus the $26 million for the prospects - $108 million.  So, they come out $12 million in the hole for years 3-5 of the deal.


So, again, win for the Mets, right?  A massive upgrade in the short term for a minor loss in the long term.

Well, an upgrade in the short term doesn't really help if your team's not going to be competitive in the short term.  The Mets project now, as about a .500 team.  They have the still formidable Nationals in their division who look to be better and the, as everyone is required to dub them, upstart Braves.  Then there's the vastly improved Phillies who could land a Machado, Harper or Corbin which would make 4 pretty good NL East teams.

Then, the Mets have been rumored to be looking to trade Noah Syndergaard.  Which makes no sense for a team looking to leap over the Nationals and Braves and, maybe, Phillies.

The Mets have gotten better in the short term - almost no question.  But, if they don't make more improvements to make themselves real contenders alongside the Nationals and Braves, and keep up with the Phillies, then sticking themselves with Cano's contract and giving up some decent prospects doesn't make any sense.

How about from Seattle's point of view?  It's basically the opposite of the Mets'.  The Mets were an ok team trying to make themselves into playoff contenders.  The Mariners are an ok team who chose to rebuild.  They didn't look like playoff contenders in 2019 or 2020 and certainly didn't look like playoff contenders with a, likely, diminished Cano, in 2021 to 2023.  So, they blew it up.  Looking for more flexibility in the future. 


So, remember how I talked about arguing before.

Now, it's time to argue.  Argue about the basic assumptions of this analysis.  Argue that Steamer is way underrating Cano who had 3.0 WAR in half a season last year - I'd hear that specific argument.  Argue that I didn't include anything about how Cano and Diaz fit the Mets' roster and how the Mets didn't need Cano because of Jeff McNeil - I'd hear that argument too.